CHANGE IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ACCESSION OF EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPEAN MEMBER STATES © 2009 By Rachel M. West A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for completion Of the Bachelor of Arts degree in International Studies Croft Institute for International Studies The University of Mississippi University, Mississippi Spring 2009 Approved: ______________________________ Advisor: Charles H. Brower ______________________________ Reader: Dr. Valentina B. Iepuri ______________________________ Reader: Dr. Kees Gispen TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction……………..……………………………………………………………..………..3 Part I: The European Court of Human Rights before 1989.......……………………………..6 Part II: Growing Membership and Caseload...................……..……………………….......13 Part III: Changing Cases and Jurisprudential Reorientation...............................................22 Part IV: Compliance with the Court Judgments.......….....................……………………...27 Part V: Lessons Learned.......................................................................……………………….35 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..…………….41 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………44 2 INTRODUCTION After the destruction and brutality of World War II, Western European states established the Council of Europe (COE) in 1949 as the first international organization designed to promote European integration. The following year, COE members adopted the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention) which became the world's first human rights treaty. Contemporaneously, COE members established a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or “the Court”) to monitor the performance of treaty obligations, which celebrated its 50th judicial year this January. Due in part to the similar political and legal traditions of the COE's early members, the ECHR quickly became one of the world's most effective international courts. Despite a modest number of claims during the Court's early years, the ECHR's caseload quickly reached substantial numbers; allocating 404 applications to a decision body in 1980 alone.1 After only twenty years, the Court had rendered judgments on 37 cases concerning both interstate and individual disputes.2 However, the ECHR adequately coped with that caseload due in part to the fact that most cases raised issues of secondary importance (such as the right of liberty and security in regards to lawful arrest or the right to a fair and timely trail) and only required the application of the European Convention to agreed facts. 1 When applications are made on the application form provided by the Registry and are accompanied by copies of all relevant documents, they are “allocated to a decision body” which opens the way to judicial examination. (This is the equivalent to what was previously referred to as “registering an application”.); Statistics found in: Turpin, Colin, and Adam Tomkins. British Government and the Constitution : Text and Materials. New York: Cambridge UP, (2007): 265-6 2 “Chronological List of Judgments and Published Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.” Council of Europe. Nov. 2008. Can be found at: <http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres/15e0e23d- 8d4a-4b53-b483-9b443ab99aa3/0/listechrono.pdf>. 3 The fall of the Soviet bloc in 1989, however, prompted the COE's extension of membership to emerging democracies in Eastern Europe which consequently produced three problematic consequences for the ECHR: an overwhelming caseload, transformation in the nature of cases, and recurring patterns of human rights violations in certain member states which collectively began to undermine the court's effectiveness. As cases accumulate before the ECHR, application processing becomes increasingly difficult. In contrast to the figure of 1980, the number of applications registered in 1998 had risen more than ten-fold to 5,981.3 By December of 2008, the total number of applications pending before the Court reached the staggering figure of 97,300.4 While the ECHR considers that, ideally, a case should be finally disposed of within two years, the present caseload exceeds the Court’s capacity, with the result that progression through the system often requires four or five years.5 Those cases which finally do see a judgment, of course, represent a small fraction (typically less than five per cent) of those initially registered with the Court.6 Additionally, the increased frequency of cases involving violations of non-derogable rights involving physical security (for example the right to life and freedom from torture) require more complex proceedings and force the Court to reorient its jurisprudence. Also, the development of reoccurring patterns of violations by particular states suggests a reduction in the court's 3 Robert Harmsen , "The Eruopean Convention on Human Rights after Enlargement." The International Journal of Human Rights Winter 5 (2001): 26 4 “Annual Report 2008 of the European Court of Human Rights (provisional edition)” Jan. 2007. Council of Europe. p. 125 <http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/69564084-9825-430B-9150- A9137DD22737/0/SurveyofActivities2006.pdf>. 5 Paraskeva, Costas. "Reforming the European Court of Human Rights: An Ongoing Change." Nordic Journal of International Law 76 (2007): 185-216. 6 “The European Court of Human Rights: Some Facts and Figures 1998-2008” ECHR, p.4-5. 4 effectiveness as measured by the implementation of its decisions. Under the circumstances just described, the COE's experience with new members may provide a cautionary tale about the expansion of international organizations. As demonstrated by the ECHR, rapid expansion can alter an organization’s character and tax its resources beyond capacity. In fact, the problems of assimilating emerging democracies may serve as an illustration of the consequences likely to flow from premature expansion of NATO and the EU to Eastern and Central European states. Seeking to develop the points just made, Part I of this paper provides a brief narrative of the ECHR's history, importance, and successes before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Part II introduces the most obvious problems facing the ECHR after 1989: an overwhelming caseload. Among other things, this section addresses the contribution of new members to a growing judicial backlog while also developing the theme that justice delayed is justice denied. Part III examines the ECHR's jurisprudential reorientation towards cases involving physical security in emerging democracies. Additionally, a study of major organizational and operational reforms of the past two decades will illustrate the ECHR's attempts to address the problems of jurisprudential reorientation. Part IV, in turn, will describe the problem of recurring patterns of violations in Eastern European members (such as repeated applications concerning Russia's inability to uphold the right to life). Together, Parts I through IV will establish how the introduction of new members could so noticeably alter the character of the COE and the effectiveness of the ECHR. Part V will use these findings to draw broader lessons regarding proposals to expand membership of organizations like the European Union 5 and NATO. PART I THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BEFORE 1989 After five devastating years of World War II, European states resolved to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. The horrors of the war stimulated for the first time internationally a tremendous concern for human rights protection. The way forward for many Western states seemed to lie with the protection of constitutional democracy and human rights in much more effective international institutions. In 1945 leaders of the world formed the United Nations, a global association of governments facilitating international cooperation. Although the UN's Charter and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights addressed human rights and fundamental freedoms, progress in the realm of human rights continued to move slowly and the process of developing a treaty stalled at the global level. Concern from European states, which suffered the war's greatest casualties, gave way to the view that their recovery, prosperity, and security required tailor-made arrangements, including a regional human rights regime.7 Efforts to find common solutions to the challenges afflicting post-war society culminated with the creation of the first European organization after WWII, the Council 7 Greer, Steven, Laurence Gormley, and Jo Shaw. The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006: 12 6 of Europe.8 Its goals focused on building a new, united Europe on a solid foundation of shared values and principles, those of pluralist democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. The COE was to be the guardian of these fundamental and interconnected values and principles.9 As a means of developing its goals, the COE created the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950. This was Europe's first expression of commitment to the international protection of human rights and it was the first international treaty to legally bind members to the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration.10 In order to monitor the performance of treaty obligations, the European Convention established three institutions based in Strasbourg, France: the European Commission of Human Rights (Commission), the European Court of Human Rights, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers),